About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
closing loopholes. that is a reputation of what john boehner suggested in the days since the president has been re-elected. >> that's totally right. a key point, the simpson-bowles tax idea is kind of a magic pony, right. everyone agrees in the ab instruct, we can bring down the rates, close loopholes and deductions and raise revenue. if that's such a wonderful idea how come it's only come up now. how come no one has done it. the reason is because it's really, really hard politically. once you get into the specifics. if you're trying to tie all the revenue to this abstract tax reform idea you're going to get into a position where the revenue is about never going to happen because once you get into reality it doesn't materialize. >> you have to do both, john. you have to do -- you have to raise the the rates and close loopholes to get the amount -- >> just raise the rates. >> you can't raise the rates high enough to produce $1.6 trillion. >> you can get $900 billion from expiring the bush tax cuts. >> and where do you get the other $700 billion from from. >> do a little reform and cut the r
to accept and double the amount that speaker boehner had offered the president during their debt negotiations last year. today the president is scheduled to meet with ceos from a dozen companies. there's some of them on your screen. general electric, ford, ibm all playing a part. they'll discuss ways to work together and try to find a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. during a closed-door meeting yesterday with union leaders and liberal supporters, president obama reportedly vowed that he would, quote, not budge when it comes to letting the bush tax cuts expire for the country's highest earners. labor leader and president of the afl-cio, richard trumka, was among those at the white house meeting. he said he and the president are on the same page. >> we're very, very committed to making sure that the middle class and workers don't end up paying the tab for a party that we didn't get to go to. the president led with that notion of protecting the middle class, and now you have republicans that have it in their power, they could sign a bill tomorrow that protects the middle
election? >> no, not at all. in fact, after election day the president, speaker boehner, senate ma minority leader mitch mcconnell all talking about the facecle life, what they were going to do, not going to do, what they wanted to negotiate, not negotiate, but on friday, as news exploded out from the cia thanks to our own andrea mitchell that the president accepted the resignation of the cia director, general david petraeus, all of that -- you have to add that plus all the things you talked about, fiscal cliff, to what the president has to deal with. as you said, no honeymoon, indeed. >> and added to what jonathan just said, julian, there are some concerns over this that this is just the tip of the iceberg. i want to play you something senator feinstein said to andrea mitchell this afternoon. >> this thing came so fast and hard. since then it's been like peeling an onion. every day another peel comes off and you see a whole new dimension to this. so my concern has actually escalated over the last few days. >> it's clear she's suggesting this is going well beyond the realm of a personal mat
party should take president obama up on his offer. you have speaker boehner saying, let's get compromise. this is the time to bring that debt down. we seriously have to do it. i don't think anyone disputes that, but it has to be a mix of spending cuts and the revenue. and the one figure that i'd like to add here is how much revenue we get by just going back to the clinton levels at $250,000 and above. that's $700 billion in tenures. that's what draws people to that number when you add that in and then close some loopholes and subsidies and do the budget cuts, we have already done a trillion. you can get to the $4 trillion that most economists say would at least lead us to the path to reduce debt over ten years. >> because it is so much money and because it would be so relatively painless for people who have income above $250,000 to see that change go back, because bill crystal is saying this now, because the president is clear that's what he's running on, it feels that's clear that's within the realm of the possible. but what else didn't previously peel like it was in the realm of possib
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)